Early version of The Carcajou with center-hinged hood. Photos courtesy GM Heritage Center.

You may, as many have, once wondered what you would do if you owned a car company. If you were Paul Seiler, president of the Yellow Truck & Coach Mfg. Company, better known as General Motors Truck Corp., then you would get hold of a preproduction 1929 Z-250 Yellow Coach, eight months before the public debut. As the Depression hadn’t hit yet, you would convince someone in accounting to release about $25,000 to you, and have the factory build it into what was probably the most luxurious vehicle on wheels, The Carcajou (wolverine).

Does your Duesenberg have one of these? It does not.

Ostensibly, Seiler had it built to tour YT&CMC dealers and production facilities, and he did record at least 3,000 miles in it over the next couple of years. But it was also described as being his vacation home, and while it did seat 14 in day configuration, it seated them in easy chairs and couches. The Z-250 drew its name from a 250-inch wheelbase and had power from a 105hp Knight. It was reportedly good for 65 MPH and carried 65 gallons of gas.

The rear seating area converted to a pair of beds, while further bunk beds folded down in front, sleeping seven people.

Rear observation room converted for sleeping, with the seat of the couch flipped up against the rear window.

Tire carrier doubled as an observation deck/speaking platform.

This is almost certainly the earliest interior photo–it has a very early dash, and no handle for the roof-mounted spotlamp, which turns up later on.

Conveniences included hot and cold running water, refrigerator, stove and matching china and silver. The stained-glass windows conceal the lavatory and private seating area on one side, and the kitchen on the other. Woodwork was brown mahogany with maple inlay, and matching light fixtures powered from an onboard battery bank. Four electric fans, three heaters and a variety of vents were on HVAC duty. They listened to an on-board radio when traveling and when stopped, could hook a phonograph to the exterior loudspeaker.

Full curtains across all windows, bedding stored in curtained front upper bunks.

One of several side entrances.

The Carcajou was originally finished in black and red, but had multiple lives. Seiler later added “The Carcajou” text and a wolverine. Wolverine!

With new graphics and Paul Seiler’s “PWS” monogram, just visible on the door above the wolverine. Wolverine!

Around 1931, it looks to have a new paint scheme and Paul Seiler’s initials have been replaced by a big “ETS,” for Buick President and General Manager E. T. Strong. The black lower body is now a lighter color, as well, but I haven’t seen an overall from this era.

The Carcajou had at least one more life, and was comprehensively refurbished again in 1942, which is probably when these undated, major changes were made. I can’t see how these are even the same two vehicles, but the Heritage Center’s records don’t include construction of a second one.

The sleek chrome and black kitchen of the Seiler design is replaced with this much simpler, stainless steel arrangement. His inlaid mahogany doors are now curtains.

1942, with major refurbishments including an all-new body and interior, including instruments. Ostensibly, this is the same chassis as 1929, but it sure looks like a much larger, later bus. It’s difficult to tell if it has a clamshell hood or not.

This is dated 1929 by GM and has the Z-250′s distinctive windows, but the dash is completely different. The hood is ventilated, possibly not a clamshell, and appears to be light-colored, as in the previous photo. But it also has the vent windows and angled windshield of the 1929 YT Z-250, and it also has the handle for the roof-mounted spotlamp of the ’29, which is absent in the ’42. Was it modernized through two iterations, once in ’31 for E. T. Strong, and again in ’42?

It’s very difficult to assign a sequence to these photos. There are two very different interior and exterior treatments, plus what seems to be a transitional design, above, but which is which? GM confirms that it was refurbished, so major changes did take place, but surely they weren’t this major. But then, who at GM would have spent this much money on a motor coach in late 1941 or early 1942–it would have had to have been completely rebodied to be the same vehicle. And of course, what happened to The Carcajou (and The Carcajou II, if it existed) after the War, if they weren’t scrapped? It seems unlikely that the second one would have been, as someone had just sunk a lot of money into it. But after 1942, both seem to disappear.

Now THAT is a mobile home! My, button-tufted wingback chairs? Stainless for days? White linens and crystal? Stained glass?! What a fascinating project for a co. to have come up with back then! Sure beats the heck out of anything you could pull behind a truck! I can almost taste the aged brandy with my after-dinner cigar….

Either its two vehicles, or the pictures with the lighter-colored interior is the EARLIEST version. The darker interior pictures (with the railroad-style dinette) go with the darker 1929 Dash and the exterior pictures with the stained-glass windows. The lighter colored version with the loose furniture has the lighter colored kitchen and the curtains to the ‘observation’ area. The differences between the lighter and darker interiors (and especially the kitchen fittings) mean its either a completely different coach or the interior was completely gutted and redone between the light-colored interior and the dark-colored interior. NONE of the interior pictures match up to the exterior 1942 picture (for one thing, the 1942 version is longer – 8 windows vs 6)

There seems to be something wrong with the chronology here. It seems plausible that an existing bus was mildly refurbished in 1941, but why would a company like GM completely rebody a bus with a body that was at least a decade out of date? Bus design had changed dramatically in the 1930s. One would think that a rebody in 1941 would feature much more contemporary styling.

My instictive guess is the weight. I’ve read that armored delivery trucks (not military ones) wore out the chassis in the life of the truck, so often the old armored body was simply removed and stuck on a new chassis. A 1941 body design on a 1920s chassis would add more weight.

Although my 1928 REO Speedwagon “Camp Car” is not as large or as luxuriously appointed, we use her every summer. We go camping and display/sell our jewelry at regional art fairs. She’s called “Gypsie” since we purchased her from a Romini couple who performed center ring at the RBBB circus.http://www.studio-gypsie.com

Interesting to see! Many older RV’s did NOT add bath facilities in them until 1949-1950. Also someone commented on the differences in length, it appears in the later version the rear “Deck” was covered in giving the coach the appearance of being longer, but adding 2 windows in the process. Both versions appear to have been truly Pullman palaces on tires!

I don’t think the rear “deck” accounts for two windows of length… There really isn’t any rear deck, regardless what the caption says, from the side view it’s obvious the deck is only as long as the width of the spare tires it carried, plus the railing used to disguise the tires. This foreshortened faux deck was a feature of some railroad cars built about the same time; it had already become apparent that an enclosed solarium was a better use of space, but the styling of the day still required the brass railing.

THANK YOU!!!! I just came across these photos of my grandfather’s motorcoach….I have seen very poorly maintained photos that my father had but they have been lost. VERY COOL !! But alas…I was too young to remember it.